Abortion is this the answer to unplanned pregnancies?

[Brian]

I knew you liked having men in your pants

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Brian

I knew you liked having men in your pants

What?? No, dude, no.

[Brian]

brian - 1
john - 0

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Brian

brian - 1
john - 0

I'll let you think that.

[Brian]

[NullPointer]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Philosophy is the study of ethics and as such is subjective. Pretty much by definition, philosophy obscures the issues.

Philosophy is not the study of ethics. Philosophy is much more broad than that, but a definition of philosphy is outside the context of my point.

Originally Posted by John Scott

What question do we have at hand? Whether or not a human organism should be protected? That is written into the constitution, ignored or not, it is there, and not a question for us to address.

People do not support abortion because they think it is ok to kill humans, its because they deny that something can be described as human or as having rights at certain stages of its existence.

Originally Posted by John Scott

The degeneration into a shouting match is the logical and unavoidable consequence of your incorrect wording. You use words whose definitions are subjective. "Human life" could mean any sort of thing. You just invite the arguments with such subjective wording.

The wording I used is completely irrelivant to my point. Whether I say human life or human organism does not make a difference. You can claim that a human organism has rights and that it is wrong to kill one and someone who supports abortion will completely agree with you on the grounds that they deny the 'personhood' of that organism.

Originally Posted by John Scott

There you go with the wording, making a simple statement into a subjective and questionable philosophical matter.

Like I said, I believe that a human organism is a human organism from the time it becomes a human organism.

Use the correct words and there is no argument.

My argument is that people will not agree with you as to what constitues a human organism. In no way am I trying to twist the issue using semantics, remember I agree with you. I am trying to address the issue in an objective manner.

Originally Posted by John Scott

This applies to a lot of so-called philosophical problems, like the well known case of 2 plus 2 equaling one. It only equals one because the units were changed.

Semantic games.

I think you are referring to Descartes argument concerning the nature of God. If you are it has nothing to do with the units, it is also irrelivant to my point so I will not go into that. If you are not I have no clue what you are talking about.

[John Scott]

Philosophy is not the study of ethics. Philosophy is much more broad than that, but a definition of philosphy is outside the context of my point.

The branch that would be invoked in this discussion is indeed ethics.

People do not support abortion because they think it is ok to kill humans

Of course they do. In intellectually honest countries like Japan, women go have abortions and then buy gifts to give to the soul of the child they just killed. And why not? Is it so wrong to take the life of an unborn child? I few second of pain, and the child is gone, saving the mother tens of thousands of dollars, at least, and much more than that in inconvenience.

its because they deny that something can be described as human or as having rights at certain stages of its existence.

I think you are a bit naive. A lot of women know that it is a child and do it anyway.

The wording I used is completely irrelivant to my point.

Wording is everything. In philosophical debate, at least. I'll demonstrate:

Whether I say human life or human organism does not make a difference. You can claim that a human organism has rights and that it is wrong to kill one and someone who supports abortion will completely agree with you on the grounds that they deny the 'personhood' of that organism.

See that? Semantics. It comes down to semantics. If you allow vague terms into the debate you've lost the debate already.

My argument is that people will not agree with you as to what constitues a human organism.

And my point is, they cannot. That is exactly why I use terms that have clear definitions and are not subject to debate.

I think you are referring to Descartes argument concerning the nature of God.

Nope.

2 plus 2 equals one. (Cheap semantics, the first "2" and the second "2" referring to quarts, the "1" being a gallon.)

[NullPointer]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The branch that would be invoked in this discussion is indeed ethics.

That I can agree with.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Of course they do. In intellectually honest countries like Japan, women go have abortions and then buy gifts to give to the soul of the child they just killed. And why not? Is it so wrong to take the life of an unborn child? I few second of pain, and the child is gone, saving the mother tens of thousands of dollars, at least, and much more than that in inconvenience.



I think you are a bit naive. A lot of women know that it is a child and do it anyway.

There is a difference the people who have abortions and people who believe abortion is morally acceptable. I agree that people often feel that what they are doing is wrong, but I don't think many people who are pro-choice activists would agree that abortion is wrong. Its well documented that people who have abortions often feel a great deal of guilt and depression.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Wording is everything. In philosophical debate, at least. I'll demonstrate:



See that? Semantics. It comes down to semantics. If you allow vague terms into the debate you've lost the debate already.



And my point is, they cannot. That is exactly why I use terms that have clear definitions and are not subject to debate.

Well then. Define 'Human Organism' I have a few books on my shelf dealing exclusively with personhood and what constitutes being human. I have a minor in philosophy and that is not an issue I aspire to or think I can address. If anything attacking my words rather than my point is semantics.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Nope.

2 plus 2 equals one. (Cheap semantics, the first "2" and the second "2" referring to quarts, the "1" being a gallon.)

That is in no way a philosophical issue, and if somehow it is it must be taken out of context. Generally when people refer to issues of whether or not 2 and 2 make 4 or something like that they are referring to Descartes' Third Meditation, which is a real argument concerning the existence of God and the nature of God. The basic point is that if God were evil he could have created us with our our nature being flawed such that it is impossible for us to determine that 2 plus 2 does not in fact equal 4. Point me to your source if possible.



Hope you're not getting frustrated with me Strange that two people who agree that abortion is wrong seem to be arguing the most.

[John Scott]

Well then. Define 'Human Organism' I have a few books on my shelf dealing exclusively with personhood and what constitutes being human. I have a minor in philosophy and that is not an issue I aspire to or think I can address. If anything attacking my words rather than my point is semantics.

Are you being obtuse? You deny my point why making my point for me. "Personhood" is subjective. Do you not know this? Why I'd even venture a guess that you would have books on the subject and still have no clue as to what it is.

The thing you do not have is books on what it is to be human, because a simple DNA test will tell you whether tissue is human or not, and the fact that a human embryo is an organism is also beyond debate.

Do you not see that you are bolstering my position when you are forced to revert to words like "personhood"?

You are allowing the pro-choice folks frame the argument. If abortion is about whether the unborn baby is a person or not, it will never be decided, because personhood is subjective. Membership in the human species is not subjective.

[NullPointer]

There is a whole line of argument against DNA being sufficient to consider something as having the rights. Personhood is a term encompassing an entity having basic rights such as the right to life. The issue of abortion boils down to whether or not an unborn baby has a right to life. This is what I mean when I say personhood: does the child have a right to life? Its not a term I made up, and this is not an argument I made up, its been made before as well as the one you are now making.

My purpose is not to provide pro-abortionists with the framework for their argument. It is to address their argument. You can consider it obtuse if you'd like but a pro-abortionist will consider your perspective on the issue as very narrow.

Now for the DNA discussion... I won't make the argument myself because more credible people have made it before me.

Judith Thomson (Professor at MIT) - A Defense of Abortion:
http://www.jstor.org/view/00483915/di984867/98p00042/0

The example get pretty out there but those are the kinds of arguments you have to be prepared to counter if you want to address the issue in an objective manner.

My only complaint about your argument is that you do not consider opposing argument. I believe that a person has a right to life at the moment it is concieved. But if I were to try to base my entire argument against abortion based on this there would be no hope of coming to a definitive answer or even persuading anyone. If you can allow for the opposing argument to be true (ie that an organism containing human DNA does not necissarily have a right to life) and still prove that abortion is murder then your argument is viable.

If abortion is about whether the unborn baby is a person or not, it will never be decided

If whether or not the child is a person or not equates to whether or not it has a right to life, then I believe that this is the core of the issue, and I expect that it will be a long time, if ever, before the issue is decided definitively.

[John Scott]

There is a whole line of argument against DNA being sufficient to consider something as having the rights.

Nobody is suggesting that we should grant DNA rights. DNA simply establishes species.

Personhood is a term encompassing an entity having basic rights such as the right to life.

Another fallacy. There are no basic rights outside of those granted by law, and those are just legal rights.

The issue of abortion boils down to whether or not an unborn baby has a right to life.

Nobody has a right to life, unless granted that right by law.

My purpose is not to provide pro-abortionists with the framework for their argument. It is to address their argument.

Don't you see? When you address the issue of whether or not a man may be aroused by a teenage girl in a mini skirt in the context of a discussion or rape, you allow the argument to be framed by rapists. Same goes for allowing non-scientific definitions of humanity into the abortion debate.

http://www.jstor.org/view/00483915/di984867/98p00042/0

Cannot log in. Want to send me the document via email?

[NullPointer]

The same arguments equates for whether or not a member of the human species has an inate right to life simply for the fact of being human.

I believe that there are basic rights outside of the rights we are granted by law. I believe Locke addresses this in the second treatise of government and Hobbes in Lavaithan. Its also in the US constitution: Inalienable Rights

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are in some sense fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered.

I pulled that from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights

The abortion debate is a social, moral, philosophic, and legal issue. Scientific definitions will only go so far. The rights of an individual is not a scientific issue. Keep in mind that the major sciences started off as philosophy: Aristotle speculated about biology, Descartes was one of the best physicists of the time, if you've ever read something written by Einstien himself it will read a bit like philosophy, even computer science's foundation lies in the philosophy of language.

I PMed you a better link to the article. I have the article itself as well as others in a book, I just googled the author and found it online. If anyone else is interested I can also send it to you.

[John Scott]

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are in some sense fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered.

I think that's horse pucky. Wishful thinking, perhaps. In the same basket as Santa Claus.

[NullPointer]

I think there is a limit to the degree to which society will submit to the will of the governing power. Hobbes said that all individuals are essentially equal. Meaning that no individual or for that matter small group of individuals can overpower the majority. Free will and the ability to defy the will of another are in a sense inalienable rights.